The
issue of parental choice for a faith school can be a choice for a nice,
white, middle-class school. We all know the contortions some parents go
through in order to get their children into such a school. My noble
friend Lord Ahmedagain, I shall need conversation with
himsaid that he did not want to be divisive. Two things happen.
It may be divisive to send a child to a faith school in the community.
Alternatively, some children are moved from the community in order to
go to faith schools which are miles away. Either way, I do not think
that that is good for
communities.

On collective
worship, I agree with everything the right reverend Prelate said,
except the religious bits. I am sorry the Minister cannot accept this
amendment. I am certainly not implying that young people in Muslim
schools were involved in disturbances or become terrorists, and I am
not suggesting that the closure of current faith schools should be
attempted. We need to see where we take these amendmentsmine
and that of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and otherson the whole
issue of faith schools in a community and trying not to
segregate.

Finally, I must say
that tonight we have provided an excellent example of how discussions
across faiths can be productive, and I would wish the same for all
schools. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment, by leave
withdrawn.

Clause 15
[Proposals for discontinuance of schools maintained by local
education authority]:

[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not
moved.]

18 July 2006 : Column 1210

Clause 15 agreed
to.

Clause 16 agreed
to.

Clause 17 [Direction
requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special
school]:

[Amendments
Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]

Clause 17 agreed
to.

Schedule
2 [Proposals for establishment or discontinuance of schools in
England]:

[Amendments
Nos. 87 to 89 not
moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed
to.

Clause 18 [Alterations
that may be made under section 19]:

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not
moved.]

Baroness
Crawley: I think that this is an appropriate
moment to break. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not
before 9.41 pm.

The
Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the Motion is put,
could we please ask for a business statement to be made when we
reassemble in one hours
time?

Baroness
Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now
resume.

Moved accordingly, and,
on Question, Motion agreed
to.

House
resumed.

Extraordinary
Rendition

8.42
pm

Lord
Campbell of Alloway rose to ask Her
Majestys Government what arrangements have been made to enable
the refuelling at military airfields of civilian aircraft with
passengers destined for extraordinary
rendition.

The
noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I thank all noble Lords who
have waited to speak on this Question. It is an emotive subject that
requires objective examination. In particular, I wish to thank the
noble Baroness, Lady DSouza, but for whose courageous
initiative the Question would not have been tabled, and the noble Lord,
Lord Triesman, who has other pressing duties, for taking the Question
at this time.

As there is a
well grounded concern and a high level of suspicion that these
arrangements are used for extraordinary rendition, resort is had to the
advisory role of your Lordships House to seek to persuade that
some measures of safeguard be taken as are to be proposed. If they
should commend themselves to your Lordships, the hope is that they
should also commend themselves to
Government.

This is an exercise
of persuasion, not of confrontation with Government. I speak at no
ones behest, and declare an interest as a member of the Joint
Committee on Human Rights, which was informed that the Foreign
Secretary was not aware of the purpose of these arrangements. That, of
course, is accepted as an assurance on the part of Government.

18 July 2006 : Column 1211

Why were the Government not informed of the purpose? Could it be that
these arrangements were the offspring of a private arrangementa
compactto seal the purpose that Government made in the wake of
the 9/11 disaster? Was that compact to be denied at all costs, never to
be disclosed, perhaps the hidden key to open the gateway to the
explicable, if this was also classified for non-disclosure by the CIA?
Such assumptions can be made only if there is no other explanation. As
yet, there is none.

I turn to the proposed
safeguard measuresfirst to withdraw clearance for the landing
of these flights for transfer under these arrangements and then to set
up an investigation that protects terrorism intelligence and sources,
perhaps under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, or the noble
Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am afraid it would appear that the
United States would not attend any such
investigation.

The
essence of the findings of the report by Amnesty International on 4
April and 14 July is that civil aircraft on charter to the CIA, with
people on board selected for transfer by the CIA to a series of highly
suspect destinations, are permitted to land and refuel at our civil and
military airfields in the United Kingdom under these arrangements for
the purpose of extraordinary rendition. The voting list on an amendment
to the Civil Aviation Bill tabled by the noble Baroness,Lady
DSouzaI am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies
of Oldham, in his place, because he had charge of the debate on that
occasion and very generously conceded that it was for the House to
decide these mattersreflects the cross-party support of 58
noble Lords, who made the compelling assumption that these aircraft
were used for extraordinary rendition, even though the amendment was
defective. The noble Lord said it was, which I accept for other
reasonsthe evil not being in the state of the law sought to be
enforced. This was revisited during consideration of the Police and
Justice Bill.

The evidence of
Lieutenant General Brims to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in open
session appeared to accept that planes landed here with people aboard
for transport, but that there was no evidence at all that the purpose
was for extradition under these arrangements. In an agreed transcript
of other evidence from 27 March, it was stated that the Foreign
Secretary had made it plain that there is
no,

evidence to show
that there are people on board those planes which do land here who are
being transferred for the purposes of extraordinary
rendition.

May I respectfully ask
one or two question of the Minister, a veritable master of explaining
the inexplicable? I am not certain that it will be possible for the
Minister to answer. Why was clearance given to some of these planes to
land at military airfields in the UK? I am delighted to see a Minister
from the Department for Transport in his place, because the object is
to close clearance for these planes and that lies within the aegis of
the noble Lord. Is it accepted that the Department for Transport
instructed the CAA to give clearance for aircraft identified as on
charter to the CIA to land at civil and military airfields in the UK?
Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so instruct the Department for
Transport and, if not, at whose behest were such

18 July 2006 : Column 1212

instructions given? Why were such instructions given without knowledge
of the purpose of the arrangements? Was any attempt made over five
years to discover the purpose of 185 flights?

8.53
pm

Lord
Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I offer my
congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on securing this
important debate and on his patience tonight in waiting for the
starting signal.

I confess that
I was puzzled by the wording of his Question, since I hope that no such
arrangements as he describes have been made, but he has now resolved my
puzzlement. As the noble Lord said, this is part of an ongoing series
of debates, beginning with the Civil Aviation Bill, proceeding in
Committee with the Police and Justice Bill and no doubt continuing into
the future. Our time today does not permit an exhaustive argument. The
noble Lord opened the case with his customary clarity. In any event, it
would serve no purpose for me to repeat what has been said on previous
occasions. However, the noble Lord has afforded an opportunity to
examine one issue that has arisen
repeatedly.

The Government have
not sought to deny that the airspace and airport facilities of some
European states have been used or, rather, abused to render prisoners
in the custody of the CIA to countries where they were at risk of
torture. The evidence is overwhelming, as the noble Lord, Lord
Campbell, has explained. I am sure that the Government would not be
privy to any such practice in this country, but the question is whether
they are in a position to know what is happening. The Government say
that no special legislation is necessary here, because there is already
power for the police to enter and search aircraft using United Kingdom
airport
facilities.

On
4 July, in the debate in Committee on the Police and Justice Bill, my
noble friend Lady Scotland sought to argue that case. I apologise at
once to my noble friend Lord Triesman for springing this on
himI had not appreciated that he would be responding to the
debate and I do not expect an answer to some of my questions this
evening. My noble friend Lady Scotland mentioned Sections 8, 17 and 23
of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Section 23 simply states that
the word premises in the Act includes aircraft. Section
8 provides that a justice may authorise a search if there has been a
serious arrestable offence and thereis likely to be relevant
material on the premises.Section 17 authorises a constable to
enter premises for a number of purposes, the principal one being to
make an arrest. My noble friend also mentioned Part III of the Aviation
Security Act. As I read it, that does not add any new powers to those
that the police already have.

My noble friend accused me of not having
identified a gap in the existing powers. I can identify a substantial
gap. If there is reason to believe that someone has been lawfully
arrested in the jurisdiction in which he was taken aboard the aircraft
but it is now planned to take him to a destination where he is likely
to be tortured, I am not clear under which of the provisions mentioned
by my noble friend power is

18 July 2006 : Column 1213

granted to the authorities to search the aircraft. It may be that the
noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has given some thought to this matter and
can perhaps
assist.

My
noble friend Lady Scotland was kind enough to respond to my suggestion
that we could analyse this matter in a private meeting. It is no
ones fault that that has not taken place. However, perhaps in
his reply my noble friend can at least assure us that if the Government
are persuaded in due course that there is a question about the
existence of adequate powers, he will press the Government to seize an
early opportunity to rectify the matter by way of legislation; and I
realise that it does not lie entirely in his gift. It would be tragic
if we permitted someone to be subjected to torture by an
oversight.

8.57
pm

Baroness
Ludford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord,
Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing this debate on a particular
aspect of extraordinary rendition. My interest is that I am the
vice-chair of the European Parliaments temporary committee on
extraordinary rendition.

First, like all EU and
Council of Europe states, the UK is under an international legal
obligation to ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys
internationally agreed fundamental rights, including protection from
arbitrary detention and torture. That obligation may be violated by
acquiescence or connivance in the conduct of foreign agents. Therefore,
there exists a positive duty to investigate substantiated claims of
breaches of fundamental rights. Those claims have been substantiated by
a great volume of credible testimony from victims, by flight records
and through judicial and parliamentary as well as journalistic
inquiries.

Secondly,
Council of Europe member states are bound by various multilateral and
bilateral agreements, such as defence, international civil aviation and
military bases agreements, but the obligations arising from those
treaties do not prevent states from complying with their human rights
obligations, and those treaties must be interpreted and applied in a
manner consistent with human rights
obligations.

Civil aircraft are
entitled to transit or land in the territory of a state that is a party
to the Chicago Convention without obtaining prior permission. However,
that state can search the plane or inspect certificates or other
documents, such as a passenger list. The fear is that extraordinary
rendition planesthat is, private jets leased by the
CIAhave sought to have it both ways; they have pretended to be
civil aircraft so as to escape the need for authorisation but they have
sought to enjoy the immunity from search and inspection that state
planes have. Amazingly, it seems as though some European Governments
may have allowed them that special double indemnity. Our own Government
may have turned a blind eye.

In
response to the report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the
other place, the Government said that they expected the
United States to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory
or airspacea curious term. One would expect an insistence or a
requirement to seek permission.

18 July 2006 : Column 1214

Of course, in the
leaked Foreign Office memo of last December, it was admitted that the
Government did not know how often the US had sought permission for
rendition flights. What checks have the Government made of Ministry of
Defence records of civil flights that land at military airfields? The
Government have now acknowledged that the Chicago Convention allows
searches and requirements to land, but they refuse to lift a finger,
even though there are protocol allegations, to investigate this
properly.

International
instruments against torture require states to assert jurisdiction over
torture offences committed in their territories. If states facilitate
transfer of an individual to a state where he is at risk of torture,
they could be liable for complicity. Such assistance can consist of
allowing refuelling or granting overflight or landing rights. In
circumstances of overwhelming prima facie evidence, which I suggest
exists, of extraordinary rendition having taken place in and through UK
and other EU states, even if that evidence is not of a criminal
standard of proof, it is incumbent on the UK authorities to stop being
passive or turning a blind eye and to start living up to the European
and international legal and human rights obligations that British
lawyers contributed so much to drafting.

The UK must put itself in a position
where it can ensure that it complies with the legal obligation to
investigate torture and other breach of human rights allegations. I
suggest that the Governments response to the Foreign Affairs
Select Committee in the other place is inadequate. The Government
said:

In the absence
of evidence of any renditions through UK territory or airspace ...
we do not consider Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture
requires us to carry out a further
investigation.

There
is enough evidence, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I hope
that the Government will tell us that they are now going to carry out a
proactive investigation. It is not enough to be passive or to be
wilfully ignorant. I suggest that that would betray this
countrys reputation for upholding human rights
obligations.

9.02
pm

Baroness
D'Souza: My Lords, I, too,
thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his kind words. I
congratulate him on securing this debate and on persisting in trying to
deal with this difficult and unacceptable business of extraordinary
rendition. This is not an issue that suffers from a lack of concerned
attention. To date there have been at least four major reports,
including those from the joint All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights
Group, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Venice Commission and
the Council of Europe. There are detailed briefings from Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty and the International Bar
Association, among other human rights organisations. There is the
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition and there is
comprehensive documentation of all the evidence to date from the House
of Commons Library. There are at least two ongoing journalist
investigations, and questions in both Houses of Parliament and several
debates have taken place in the past year. A case is being brought in
the US courts by the American Civil

18 July 2006 : Column 1215

Liberties Union. An amendment to institute a mechanism to ensure that in
the future any suspicion is immediately acted on was, as has been said,
put forward in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill and is currently
in the Police and Justice Bill. Therefore, the topic is well researched
and the ground has been well covered in this
House.

All these reports,
questions, debates and briefings suggest that the UK and other European
countries are guilty of a degree of involvement in extraordinary
rendition of foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activity.
However, the issue that emerges is the large amount of circumstantial
evidence pitted against the Governments repeated assertions
that the UK has not and would never condone the practice of
extraordinary rendition. Those assertions of course are extremely
welcome.

But is that enough to
deter other countries from using UK facilitiesmilitary or
otherwiseto further their own methods of pursuing suspected
terrorists? As has already been said, logically, the possibilities are
that, first, whatever happens in other parts of the world,
extraordinary rendition has not in any way involved the UK either in
the use of facilities, top-level agreements or the intelligence
services because of a comprehensive and stringent refusal on the part
of the Government to be instrumental in it; secondly, UK facilities and
perhaps the intelligence services have been involved without the direct
knowledge of the Government; and, thirdly, the Government are aware
that extraordinary rendition has on occasion taken place using UK
facilities and intelligence services, but there is no, nor is there
likely to be, direct
evidence.

At
present the first possibility is the one that is put forward by the
Government. But that is increasingly difficult to maintain due to more
evidence emerging and the admission by senior judicial personnel that
many European countries have been guilty of allowing territory to be
used for extraordinary rendition. The European Union Justice
Commissioner, for example, is calling on Governments to make clear
their role in extraordinary rendition. The Swiss senator Mr Dick Marty
asserts that collaboration with the CIA is proven. The Council of
Europe Secretary General feels that blanket denials of involvement do
not constitute an adequate response and he calls for official
investigations.

If the second
possibility has any validity, the intelligence and airport services are
operating outside the law, which would constitute culpable ignorance on
the part of the Government. The third possibility is of course an
extremely depressing one and not at the moment a road down which
thankfully any of us have to go.

However, I have to
repeat the question: is it enough for the Government to assert their
adherence to the UN Convention Against Torture? I suggest not. There is
a strong suspicion of wrongdoing and the Government could easily damp
down those suspicions with actions designed to prevent any future
possibility of involvement in extraordinary rendition, which would at
the same time reassure the public of the UK Governments legal
and moral commitments.

18 July 2006 : Column 1216

9.06
pm

The
Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like other noble
Lords I congratulate my noble friend on securing this important debate.
In so far as it may be of relevant interest, I remind the House that I
am a green card holder and therefore sometime resident in the United
States. Given that my life straddles both sides of the Atlantic, I
begin by stating my firm support for the fight against terrorism. But I
am equally convinced thatand despite this being a statement of
the obvious, I do not believe that it can be said often
enoughwe diminish and demean the virtue of that fight if,
however marginally, we resort to the tools and tactics of the
terrorist.

As to my noble
friends Question today, I make no claim for any particular
expertise in relation to extraordinary rendition. Like most of us, I
merely rely on the odd news reports that have appeared in the media.
Rather, I come to the issue in my capacity as a delegate to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. As it happens, our annual plenary
session took place in Brussels the week before last and, as the
Minister will no doubt be aware, the resulting declaration contains a
number of resolutions adopted by the assembly. One in particular,
entitled Strengthening effective parliamentary oversight of
security and intelligence agencies, has special relevance to
todays debate.

After
due consideration by the full assembly rather than just in committee,
that resolution was amended by the addition of a number of new
paragraphs. Two of those are of concern. The
first,

Urges all
participating States to ensure that their territory and facilities are
not used to assist rendition flights or to operate secret detention
centres, and to cooperate fully in the investigations conducted by the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European
Parliament into allegations about secret detention
centres.

The second
chimes with the numerous requests that other noble Lords have made
tonight. It
again,

Calls upon all
participating States to investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations
that their territory has been used to assist CIA-chartered flights
secretly transporting detainees to countries where they may face
disappearance, torture or other
ill-treatment.

I
make no judgment as to whether those represent an accurate reflection
of current Foreign Office and/or government policy. That said, it is
worth pointing out that perhaps not surprisingly only the US delegation
was opposed to the insertion of the two new paragraphs and in fact all
members of the UK delegation, irrespective of their political
allegiance, voted for them. Indeed, tacit Foreign Office acceptance of
the substance of the paragraphs could perhaps be inferred on the basis
that the FCO officials present did not seek to make us aware of any
potential policy conflicts that acceptance of the amendments may have
contained.

That therefore begs
an inevitable question. So far as I am aware, the Government have
consistently refused to contemplate any inquiry into extraordinary
rendition in the UK. As the Prime Minister put it in December last
year:

I have
absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been
happening here at all, and I am not going to start ordering inquiries
into this, that and the next thing, when I have got no evidence to show
whether this is right or not.

18 July 2006 : Column 1217

Perhaps the best that
can be said about that statement is that at least the line is
consistent. And yet, in this context, the text of the resolution is
unequivocal in two important respects. It requires that all
participating states ensure that their territory and facilities are not
used to assist rendition flights and that all participating states
investigate promptly and thoroughly allegationsthat last is an
extremely important wordthat their territory has been used to
assist CIA-chartered
flights.

At its simplest,
therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government as
representatives of an OSCE member will take the necessary action to
deliver on the terms of the resolution? Will the Government, in so far
as it is necessary so to do, ban access of rendition flights to UK
airports and airspace, and will they issue an urgent and thorough
inquiry into the matter?

9.10
pm

Lady
Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am speaking
entirely on my own account, although I am a member of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, whence I have got my
information.

The
evidence in the Marty report and, most important, because it concerns
this country's involvement, evidence unearthed by Stephen Grey, an
investigative journalist, of the kidnapping or arrest of people by the
United Statesthat is, by the CIAand the transporting of
them, in order that they may be tortured, to countries that are less
squeamish about torturing people, may be purely verbal and
unsubstantiated by written statements, but it is nevertheless pretty
strong evidence and should be investigated immediately by the
Government. Pending such an investigation, I am asking the Government
to take steps now to prevent this country in future from playing any
part, however small, in such a repugnant
practice.

I
am not asking for a public inquiry. Public inquiries are very expensive
and take far too long. Besides that, I appreciate that such an inquiry
could compromise security by revealing secure information and sources.
What I am asking is that the Government take steps immediately to
prevent CIA rendition flights landing at any UK airport, whether civil
or military, whether to refuel or for any other purpose, or making use
of UK airspace. I do not think that it would be very difficult to do
that. It might involve someone boarding CIA flights to check whether
there were any trussed and manacled passengers on board. The Americans
might find this unacceptable, to which I would say, Hard
cheese. If you want fuel, or whatever else, you accept our conditions
or go elsewhere. There are limits to what crimes can be
committed or connived at in the name of
friendship.

Condoleezza Rice's
protestations of virtue leave me unimpressed. If the United States is
not guilty, it should have no objection to co-operating. But I believe
that the United States is guilty, and us with it, and it is up to us,
not Condoleezza Rice, to keep our house
clean.

I have
rarely had occasion to be ashamed of being British, but now I am,
bitterly, because it is quite clear to those of us who have taken an
interest in the matter

18 July 2006 : Column 1218

that this country has in some ways been aiding and abetting this
horrible practiceI hope and believe behind the Government's
back. So far the Government have not wanted to know. I am asking the
Government to stop burying their heads in the sand, to investigate the
matter and, above all, to take immediate action to prevent rendition
flights making any further use of our airports and our
airspace.

9.15
pm

The
Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, as we have heard,
there is overwhelming evidence that the UK, while protesting its
continuing support for human rights, is still concealing its own part
in this illegal practice. All of us here will agree that potential
terrorists have to be subjected to rigorous interrogation within the
bounds of human rights law, but in the interests of anti-terrorism, in
the months after 9/11 the UK, as a key coalition ally, ignored much
that was going on in Bagram airport and other US bases in the
region.

Whatever
we say on our own behalf, we seem to move in tandem with the United
States. It was years before our Ministers began to comment publicly
about Guantanamo, except in the well-known cases of British citizens.
When President Bush accepted that Guantanamo was no longer a going
concern, our Prime Minister and the Attorney-General followed suit. It
was a relief to all that the Supreme Court ruled that the military
commissions were not properly constituted courts, after months of
pretence and
pussyfooting.

Ministers can
depend on information and advice from their civil servants; the rest of
us can believe only what we are told by friends and sources we trust.
Let me recall briefly the case Binyam Mohammed al Habashi, an Ethiopian
asylum seeker who came to Britain in 1994 and was granted leave to
remain. For several years he lived in north Kensington. He was picked
up in Karachi in April 2002 and then began a cycle of interrogation by
Pakistan intelligence, the FBI, MI6 and others who suspected he was an
al-Qaeda terrorist. He was taken into US custody for rendition to
Morocco where he was beaten and tortured over an 18-month period before
being taken to
Guantanamo.

During one
interview, Binyam said that the MI6 officer was nice to him and gave
him a cup of tea, saying he was innocent and that he would soon be sent
home. Yet there is strong evidence that during the time he was in
Morocco his torturers were relying on and probably conniving with
British intelligence. The torture included many known and less known
unpleasant techniques, including the cutting of his genitals with a
scalpel. It is inconceivable that MI6 was unaware of his rendition and
torture, and highly likely that its intelligence contributed to it. He
has been languishing in Guantanamo ever
since.

On
those rare occasions when governments or law enforcement agencies admit
their mistakes, they still pretend to be on the side of the angels and
do so reluctantly. The EU Justice Commissioner, as we have heard,
admitted for the first time last month that rendition takes place on
European soil, and yet the UK is still in denial. The Minister said
rather surprisingly at Question Time recently that he did not accept
that

18 July 2006 : Column 1219

there has been extraordinary rendition, especially in relationship to
Guantanamo. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said during the debate
on the Police and Justice Bill
that,